2 more students die from Monday's school shooting.

[Aaron MkII]

Safety courses are a decent goal, if only to reduce accidents and to instill some respect. As for target practice, I'm sure some people imagine killing, I shoot zombie targets but there is a whole discipline called precision shooting that involves long distances and tight groupings, and is more science then anything else.

At the end of the day if your not hurting people, who cares.

[Losonti Tokash]

That's pretty much what I think. But it's absurd when someone goes "but knives are just as dangerous" or what have you. Some people seem so intent on defending gun ownership (which is not a bad thing) they seem to try to convince themselves and others that guns are not, in fact, a dangerous tool made for killing. Pretending otherwise just says to me a person isn't taking the gun seriously or respecting its power (for lack of a better term).

[Aaron MkII]

Honestly in a country were firearms are as ours then there is absolutey no excuse not to have manditory courses in every school, some companies even make non firing, bright orange training guns for that purpose.

If people balk at the cost then get the NRA on board. They should be all for it.

[Thanas]

IIRC Germany had a killing spree a while ago in which the attacker used a homemade flamethrower and replica medieval weapons.

What? I must totally have missed that.

[Thanas]

That's pretty much what I think. But it's absurd when someone goes "but knives are just as dangerous" or what have you. Some people seem so intent on defending gun ownership (which is not a bad thing) they seem to try to convince themselves and others that guns are not, in fact, a dangerous tool made for killing. Pretending otherwise just says to me a person isn't taking the gun seriously or respecting its power (for lack of a better term).

To me it pretty much comes down to what can safely be avoided. A society can not avoid having knifes. However, it can function without guns.

Unfortunately, the USA seems to be in a deep hole with regards to already existing gun ownership, so even an outright ban would most likely only eliminate gun ownership in a few decades. So far, the only nation I know of that has carried out a widespread and effective program of disarming its own gun-toting citizenry was (ironically) Nazi Germany (of course, only to then teach everybody how to kill people on roids).

[Sea Skimmer]

What? I must totally have missed that.

I looked it up, it was in fact in 1964. I thought it was more like 1984. Seifert Walter killed 10 teachers and students, wounded 22 in Cologne before drinking insecticide to slowly kill himself. His flamethrower was made out of an insecticide sprayer and he had a lance and a mace. He came onto the school grounds, torched a group of students playing outside and then broke out windows with the mace to spray flame into a classroom full of kids.

[Thanas]

I am not sure using an almost fifty-year old example is a good way to extrapolate current trends from.

[Questor]

Ok, if the car analogy is not accepted, how about these:

Javelins
Swords
Crossbows
Bows

How are they different from guns? What use, beyond that of killing/wounding or the derived "practicing" do any of those have?

If the argument is simply one of degree, I'm curious where people stand on the line, and why.

[Aaron MkII]

I don't see a reason to regulate any of them.

Crossbows and bows are used in hunting and competitions (my daughter has her own actually) and bows take a lot of practice to become proficient with. It's far, far easier to buy a handgun out of some guys trunk then to go on a spree with a bow or crossbows, which are a real pain in the ass to cock.

[Thanas]

I do competitive archery and it is rather easy to hit mansize targets from around 100 meters, give or take 20. And you need to register them (same with crossbows) in Germany, though the permission is very easy to get.

[Aaron MkII]

You almost certainly own a better bow then we do, which is just one for kids.

We don't have to register them or anything, you just have to be over 18 to buy one but thats usually store policy. Every once and a while someone gets killed by one and there is talk of a ban but it never goes anywhere.

[Losonti Tokash]

Is "how are guns different from swords or bows" a serious question?

[Thanas]

You almost certainly own a better bow then we do, which is just one for kids.

Probably. It is an olympic bow and it has quite a lot of penetration. I accidentally killed animals with it (thankfully nothing bigger than a dove or hare) when shots veered right or left during practice. That is to be expected from a 38kg pull though, I guess.

[Aaron MkII]

Yeah, ours is 12lbs IIRC. So she just uses it to shoot at balloons pinned to a target board.

Plenty of people around here use bows for deer and bear though. Even has it's own season.

[Thanas]

I do not really approve of the use of a bow for that, mainly because a well-used rifle will kill a dear faster and less painfully.

[Questor]

Is "how are guns different from swords or bows" a serious question?

At the simplist level, yes, it is.

Both are things designed to kill things. Both have no other uses that could not be dismissed as "practicing to kill things."

It's not like shaving with a sword is as practical as shaving with a razor. (Don't hurt me Thanas, I know it was done.)

I'd like to hear why - unless you truely do feel that guns are simply a degree too far - these items fall into a different category.

[Aaron MkII]

I do not really approve of the use of a bow for that, mainly because a well-used rifle will kill a dear faster and less painfully.

*shrug* I don't make the laws man, I just follow them. My right arm is to weak to reliably use a bow anyways, and I prefer a firearm anyways.

[Thanas]

I'd like to hear why - unless you truely do feel that guns are simply a degree too far - these items fall into a different category.

That's easy. Guns are easier to use to kill a larger number of people. An untrained person can still point a gun at people and hope he hits something. Chances are, in a target group, he will.

An untrained person hacking at a group of people with a sword is more likely to either hit nobody, hit himself or get the sword stuck in the ribcage of some unlucky fellow than to catch up with multiple targets and hit all of them (after spending minutes trying to extract the sword from the ribcage of the first fellow he stuck it in).

Likewise, an untrained person using a bow will more likely overshoot the targets (don't laugh, but anything beyond 10 meters and you actually need some training hitting mansized targets reliably). Likewise, a bow will not kill a person unless it hits and pierces (the latter unlikely beyond 60 meters) a vital organ. Also, rate of fire. A trained Archer like myself can lose 3 arrows on target in a matter of seconds. An untrained person will first struggle to nock the arrow, then to pull the bowstring correctly without swerving to the left and right (not as easy as one would need to get into a proper stances and anybody trying to copy movie stances will most likely hit nothing anyway, especially with the hollywood way of pulling the bowstring into the cheek after lifting the bow above your head), then most likely will not know how to use the rangefinder and then most likely hit his arm with the bowstring while releasing the arrow, thereby depriving the arrow of any striking power. I would be very surprised if an untrained person manages a rate of fire of more than 3 arrows over 2 minutes and one can only carry so many arrows anyway. Anything above 20 and you are just encumbering yourself.

Plus, bows and arrows cost a lot. A good bow costs in the neighbourhood of up to 1000 EUR, and a carbon arrow will set you back ~ 6 EUR a piece at the very least.

A handgun can also be concealed a lot easier than a 1.2+m sword or a 1.8m long bow.

[Aaron MkII]

It's pretty amazing that people seem to have forgotten why firearms replaced the majority of hand held weapons.

[Sea Skimmer]

I am not sure using an almost fifty-year old example is a good way to extrapolate current trends from.

Why not, they keep happening don't they and nothing has really changed about people, and much more recent examples exist of killing sprees carried out partly or completely with non firearm weapons. The worst mass school related killing in US history took place back in 1928 and was carried out with explosives. The fact is the proper nut jobs are going to find ways to kill people, and they make up a large portion of school killings and mass killing events in general. Its also worth considering that for every event which killed dozens, something only likely with firearms or explosives, you'd got closer to ten events which involved less then ten fatalities and that is very possible with an edged weapon and a well chosen target such as a bus or a school room with windows that don't open.

Frankly though we should also all just be happy more people don't sabotage the railroad tracks. Its kind of painfully easy to send a train falling off a bridge but for whatever reasons its been very rare. I'd assume its linked into the psychos wanted to see peoples faces when they die.

[Thanas]

I am not sure using an almost fifty-year old example is a good way to extrapolate current trends from.

Why not, they keep happening don't they and nothing has really changed about people, and much more recent examples exist of killing sprees carried out partly or completely with non firearm weapons.

None exist on that level in Germany and none exist in the USA in the last three decades either (iirc). So yes, these one-off examples are pretty irrelevant to the subject at hand.

The worst mass school related killing in US history took place back in 1928 and was carried out with explosives. The fact is the proper nut jobs are going to find ways to kill people, and they make up a large portion of school killings and mass killing events in general. Its also worth considering that for every event which killed dozens, something only likely with firearms or explosives, you'd got closer to ten events which involved less then ten fatalities and that is very possible with an edged weapon and a well chosen target such as a bus or a school room with windows that don't open.

If your numbers are correct, then eliminating guns would eliminate more than half the fatalities in all school shootings. That seems a more than laudable goal and very efficient to me.

[Questor]

It's pretty amazing that people seem to have forgotten why firearms replaced the majority of hand held weapons.

I haven't. I'm pointing out that it is a matter of degrees and ease of use.

It's not: Guns are a whole new class of weapon that has no other uses and are completely unlike - even in concept - anything that has come before.

I put the line of banning at one point, and I admit that there can be differing opinions about where that point is.

[Aaron MkII]

It's all pretty academic anyways. The US has the right to own enshrined in law so not much is going to change, the situation here is theoretically more fluid but in practice is stagnant.

[Sea Skimmer]

None exist on that level in Germany and none exist in the USA in the last three decades either (iirc). So yes, these one-off examples are pretty irrelevant to the subject at hand.

A flamethrower attack took place in the UK within the last ten years, China had a large number of knife attacks. Yeah, its relevant. In the US I would not expect much use of other means then guns, precisely because we have nearly one gun per person. That doesn't mean the problems of aggression, cultural influences and certain people just being crazy in a nation which abandon large scale use of mental hospitals just goes away without them.

If your numbers are correct, then eliminating guns would eliminate more than half the fatalities in all school shootings. That seems a more than laudable goal and very efficient to me.

You don't mean school shootings, but I get the drift. However that is on the basis that the killers would not try any other method, which is false reasoning, all the more so when the typical school shooting involves a single victim. If we want to be efficient about saving people, other radical things could be done without trampling on explicit constitutional rights which would accomplish far more and probably encounter less nation breaking political opposition. Like say banning tobacco or placing alcohol sensors in every motor vehicle. The shear amount of money that would be throw at political ads to ban any of these things could meanwhile, probably save even more kids if it was just spent on cancer research or something else inherently useful. Anyway as the numbers show, the trend is downwards on its own, and it would have gone down even more plainly had the existing laws been properly enforced in the case of Seung-Hui Cho.

[Thanas]

You don't mean school shootings, but I get the drift. However that is on the basis that the killers would not try any other method, which is false reasoning, all the more so when the typical school shooting involves a single victim.

Admittedly it is false reasoning. However, the core of it is still applicable. A gun is easy to conceal and easier to use than a lot of the other methods. That alone would suggest school shootings would go down in numbers while likely substantially decreasing the number of killings with several victims.

If we want to be efficient about saving people, other radical things could be done without trampling on explicit constitutional rights which would accomplish far more and probably encounter less nation breaking political opposition.

I already stated that I consider confiscation impractical. This is merely hypothetical.